European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between James Cartlidge and Carol Monaghan

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

It is fair to say that freedom of movement works both ways. Of course, if we end free movement for those coming to this country, there will be an impact on our rights when we go to our nearest neighbours. We must ask ourselves a profound question in the context of the EU debate: would our country still vote to leave on the basis of concerns about immigration if people knew that the result of ending free movement would be that immigration would not decrease, but that we as citizens would face reduced rights in going to other countries in Europe, such as having to pay charges and fill in visa applications, at least for work and reasons other than tourism?

Let us look at the facts. The latest figures show that net migration into this country from the EU is down to 57,000. Net immigration into this country from outside the EU is up to 261,000. A year ago, the two top countries in the list were Poland and Romania, and they are now India and China. We are not talking Liechtenstein in population terms here. That is a serious point.

I remember the referendum campaign, in which I took an active part. I did home and away debates with my neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). To anyone who claims that immigration was not a reason for the vote, I say that, yes, there are many people who for many years believed in leaving the EU for reasons of sovereignty—I strongly respect that view, which is based on a noble principle of democracy—but I know that what swung many undecided people in my constituency was house building in the countryside. Why? Because they believed that if we left the EU, there would be no immigration and we would not need those houses. It sounds crazy, but I have got the emails to prove it, and colleagues will know it.

Immigration was front and centre of the leave campaign. We remember Nigel Farage standing in front of a poster of the new Untermenschen. Mr Speaker, you know the meaning of that word—it has a very serious meaning. The poster showed a whole column of people and the implication was that if we left, what it depicted would not happen. We know that that campaign played with fire. It opened Pandora’s box, and somehow we have to put the lid back on. When I raise the matter, I do not do it happily. I am personally relaxed about immigration to this country because I recognise the huge contribution immigrants have made and will continue to make.

However, we must now be honest and say to the country that in the coming days, options will come before us in which free movement is back on the table. What if it is the case that keeping free movement will enable us to control immigration in future by having the strictest possible rules on immigration from 90% of the world population?

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I come from a nation that is positive about the benefits of immigration. Indeed, my constituents embrace immigrants in their communities. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about immigration about China and India, but he has not mentioned that those people are generally international students, who leave at the end of their degrees. Those students should be taken out of net migration figures.

[James Cartlidge]

That is a perfectly fair point, but of course the reason they are in there is that many do choose to remain. [Interruption.] I take the figures as they are. I remember your time strictures, Mr Speaker, so I will move on to my second point, which is on free trade.

The reason we have the situation with immigration is that it is a discriminatory system. We allow free movement from the EU, but not from non-EU countries. The reason it is discriminatory is that we have a trade deal with the EU called the single market. Of course, it was in the Lancaster House speech that the red line on the single market was first stated, but I want to return to a Lancaster House speech in which the Prime Minister was addressing an audience of business leaders. She said:

“Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people. Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it. It’s not a dream. It’s not a vision. It’s not some bureaucrat’s plan. It’s for real. And it’s only five years away.”

That was the Lancaster House speech of Mrs Thatcher in 1988. There are only three MPs left in the House who voted against the Single European Act. One is the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), one is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), and the third one is the Leader of the Opposition. The single market is not some socialist conspiracy; it is capitalism and it is free trade, and I believe fundamentally in free trade.

In the days to come, we will have to look at other issues. We will have to be prepared to flex our red lines, to be blunt, to deliver on the referendum result in a way that preserves free trade and gives us the best possible deal for our constituents.

School Funding

Debate between James Cartlidge and Carol Monaghan

Thursday 5th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate on an incredibly important subject. I want to start by making two broad points. The first concerns welfare reform, about which there has been some controversy of late. I must admit that I have spoken in favour of tax credit changes on several occasions, and each time I made the point that I felt that the benefit trap prevented people from making the most of their potential. The key thing is that if we are going to reform welfare and take those sorts of tough decisions, we must balance them out by supporting our schools, which enable people to make the most of their potential. I think that that is incredibly important.

The other general point is that Conservative Members have not marched in today calling for more borrowing, a bigger deficit and even more spending. We all support overall Government policy. We simply want a fairer share of the existing spending within the existing prudential spending levels that the Chancellor has set out.

Schools in Suffolk receive block funding per pupil of £4,119 compared with the national average of £4,447. I will resist the urge to get into a debate about who is in the worst position, but Suffolk is certainly in the bottom quartile. In my view, there is a link to standards. There has been a slight improvement recently. For the first time in some years, Suffolk is now slightly ahead of the national average for GCSEs with 53.4% of our pupils gaining five GCSEs at grades A to C, including English and maths.

When I spoke to the county council about the issue, it outlined some of the benefits if we were to achieve higher spending. There is no point simply asking for it: we have to decide what we would do with it. Two things are most important. First, we have some tiny schools in my constituency which have a question mark over their sustainability. With higher spending, we could make small schools more sustainable and therefore preserve a key part of a rural constituency. The other point the council made is that we could meet the increased demands for support for learners with special educational needs and high needs.

I feel very passionately about this subject. I mentioned welfare earlier, and I think that education spending is the prime public good in public spending. It is the way that people from every background can be given a chance by the taxpayer to get on in life. If we are going to spend more on anybody, it must be on those with the greatest needs. In other words, when we ask for higher spending, it is for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies. This is not about more money for the middle classes, which is another important point to stress to the Minister.

My final point—something that I have not had a chance to talk about since getting elected but certainly talked a lot about in the build-up to the election in my constituency—is that Suffolk is part of the eastern region. We recently had a referendum about the future of the United Kingdom in which the Prime Minister made a vow. Now, I made a vow to my constituents to represent them and their best interests. The eastern region receives, in total Government spending, an average of £7,950 per head, compared with £9,866 in London and £10,275 in Scotland. Scotland receives 23% per head more than my county while paying identical rates of taxation. I regard that, prima facie, as totally unfair and unacceptable. It would be all right if our trains were of the highest quality.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentions funding. Yesterday in Scotland questions, there was an allegation of Scotland being subsidised, but the fact is that Scottish people are paying more in taxes than they receive back in block grants. His own Government have identified that.